Activate Document

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is nominally covered. The description adds the meaningful 'already open' precondition, but it never explains why an activation is flagged destructive, nor what happens if the named document cannot be found. Notably, the destructive flag is hard to reconcile with an operation described purely as bringing a document to the foreground.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, correctly leading with the verb and resource. It is arguably too terse for a tool whose annotation profile and second parameter need explanation, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool annotated destructive with an undocumented process_id and no failure behavior for an unopened document, the description leaves real gaps an agent would want closed before calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It usefully clarifies that the required 'document' argument accepts either a title or a path reference, but the optional 'process_id' parameter is unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the agent unable to know when to supply it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('document'), plus the identifier forms accepted ('title or path reference'). The phrase 'already open' implicitly distinguishes it from revit_open_document and revit_close_document, though neither sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The precondition 'already open' implies this is for switching focus among a session's open documents, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on erroring when the document is not open, and no named alternative such as revit_open_document for the not-yet-open case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.